This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-955
entitled 'Department of State: Comprehensive Plan Needed to Address
Persistent Foreign Language Shortfalls' which was released on September
22, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the
Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
September 2009:
Department of State:
Comprehensive Plan Needed to Address Persistent Foreign Language
Shortfalls:
GAO-09-955:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-955, a report to the Subcommittee on Oversight of
Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of
Columbia, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S.
Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Proficiency in foreign languages is a key skill for U.S. diplomats to
advance U.S. interests overseas. GAO has issued several reports
highlighting the Department of State’s (State) persistent foreign
language shortages. In 2006, GAO recommended that State evaluate the
effectiveness of its efforts to improve the language proficiency of its
staff. State responded by providing examples of activities it believed
addressed our recommendation. In this report, which updates the 2006
report, GAO (1) examined the extent to which State is meeting its
foreign language requirements and the potential impact of any
shortfall, (2) assessed State’s efforts to meet its foreign language
requirements and described the challenges it faces in doing so, and (3)
assessed the extent to which State has a comprehensive strategy to
determine and meet these requirements. GAO analyzed data on State’s
overseas language-designated positions; reviewed strategic planning and
budgetary documents; interviewed State officials; and conducted
fieldwork in China, Egypt, India, Tunisia, and Turkey.
What GAO Found:
As of October 31, 2008, 31 percent of Foreign Service officers in
overseas language-designated positions (LDP) did not meet both the
foreign languages speaking and reading proficiency requirements for
their positions. State continues to face foreign language shortfalls in
regions of strategic interest—such as the Near East and South and
Central Asia, where about 40 percent of officers in LDPs did not meet
requirements. Despite efforts to recruit individuals with proficiency
in critical languages, shortfalls in supercritical languages, such as
Arabic and Chinese, remain at 39 percent. Past reports by GAO, State’s
Office of the Inspector General, and others have concluded that foreign
language shortfalls could be negatively affecting U.S. activities
overseas. Overseas fieldwork for this report reaffirmed this
conclusion.
State’s approach to meeting its foreign language requirements includes
an annual review of all LDPs, language training, recruitment of
language-proficient staff, and pay incentives for language skills. For
example, State trains staff in about 70 languages in Washington and
overseas, and has reported a training success rate of 86 percent.
Moreover, State offers bonus points for language-proficient applicants
who have passed the Foreign Service exam and has hired 445 officers
under this program since 2004. However, various challenges limit the
effectiveness of these efforts. According to State, a primary challenge
is overall staffing shortages, which limit the number of staff
available for language training, as well as the recent increase in
LDPs.
State’s efforts to meet its foreign language requirements have yielded
some results but have not closed persistent gaps and reflect, in part,
a lack of a comprehensive, strategic approach. State officials have
said that the department’s plan for meeting its foreign language
requirements is spread throughout a number of documents that address
these needs; however these documents are not linked to each other and
do not contain measurable goals, objectives, or milestones for reducing
the foreign language gaps. Because these gaps have persisted over
several years despite staffing increases, we believe that a more
comprehensive, strategic approach would help State to more effectively
guide its efforts and assess its progress in meeting its foreign
language requirements.
Figure: Positions:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Location: Africa;
LDPs filled by officer meeting requirements: 157;
LDPs filled by officers who don't meet requirements: 111;
Vacant LDPs: 33.
Location: East Asia;
LDPs filled by officer meeting requirements: 324;
LDPs filled by officers who don't meet requirements: 162;
Vacant LDPs: 46.
Location: Europe;
LDPs filled by officer meeting requirements: 662;
LDPs filled by officers who don't meet requirements: 297;
Vacant LDPs: 74.
Location: Near East;
LDPs filled by officer meeting requirements: 203;
LDPs filled by officers who don't meet requirements: 138;
Vacant LDPs: 36.
Location: South/Central Asia;
LDPs filled by officer meeting requirements: 109;
LDPs filled by officers who don't meet requirements: 76;
Vacant LDPs: 21.
Location: Western Hemisphere;
LDPs filled by officer meeting requirements: 805;
LDPs filled by officers who don't meet requirements: 221;
Vacant LDPs: 124.
Source: GAO analysis of State data.
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
To address State’s persistent foreign language shortfalls, GAO
recommends that the Secretary of State develop a comprehensive,
strategic plan that links all of State’s efforts to meet its foreign
language requirements. State generally agreed with GAO’s
recommendations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-955] or key
components. For more information, contact Jess Ford at (202) 512-4128
or fordj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
State Continues to Face Shortfalls in Meeting Its Foreign Language
Requirements, with Potentially Adverse Effects on Department
Operations:
State Efforts to Meet Foreign Language Requirements, Which Include
Training, Recruitment, and Incentives, Face Several Challenges:
State Lacks a Comprehensive Strategic Plan to Address Foreign Language
Requirements:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Overseas Language-Designated Positions, by Language Type and
Region as of October 31, 2008:
Table 2: Proficiency and Language Capability Requirements:
Table 3. Examples of the Potential Impact of Language Shortfalls from
GAO Fieldwork, Previous GAO Reports, and Reports by Other
Organizations:
Figures:
Figure 1: Number of Overseas LDPs Filled by Officers Meeting the
Requirements, Filled by Officers Who Do Not Meet the Requirements, and
Vacant, as of October 31, 2008:
Figure 2: Number of Overseas LDPs, by Region, Filled by Officers
Meeting the Requirements, Filled by Officers Who Do Not Meet the
Requirements, and Vacant, as of October 31, 2008:
Figure 3: Percentage of Foreign Service Officers Who Do Not Meet the
Language Requirements for Their Positions, by Language Type and
Selected Languages:
Abbreviations:
FSI: Foreign Service Institute:
FSO: Foreign Service officer:
HR: Bureau of Human Resources:
ILR: Interagency Language Roundtable:
LDP: language-designated position:
OPM: Office of Personnel Management:
USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office: Washington, DC 20548:
September 17, 2009:
The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka:
Chairman:
The Honorable George V. Voinovich:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal
Workforce, and the District of Columbia:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
Proficiency in foreign languages is a key skill for U.S. Foreign
Service officers (FSO) to advance U.S. foreign policy and economic
interests overseas. The Department of State (State) seeks to develop
employees who are able to competently and credibly convey America's
message to foreign audiences and understand the perspectives of our
interlocutors in foreign languages and requires foreign language
proficiency for thousands of positions overseas. In 2008, approximately
45 percent of all Foreign Service positions overseas were designated as
requiring foreign language skills. Over the years, we have issued
several reports highlighting State's persistent shortages in staff with
critical foreign language skills,[Footnote 1] including most recently
in 2006, when we reported that almost one-third of staff in language-
designated positions did not meet the language requirements of their
positions despite a number of initiatives to improve the department's
foreign language capabilities. We recommended that State systematically
evaluate the effectiveness of its efforts to increase the language
proficiency of its officers. State responded by providing examples of
activities it believed addressed our recommendation. In fiscal year
2009, State received funding for 300 additional positions to rebuild
its training capacity, or "float," to limit the number of overseas
positions that are vacant while employees are in language training.
[Footnote 2]
You asked us to build on and update our previous studies on State's
foreign language proficiency challenges and measures to address them.
Specifically, this report (1) examines the extent to which State is
meeting its foreign language requirements and the potential impact of
any shortfalls on U.S. diplomacy, (2) assesses State's efforts to meet
its foreign language requirements and describes the challenges it faces
in doing so, and (3) assesses the extent to which State has a
comprehensive strategy to determine and meet these requirements.
To identify the extent to which State is meeting its foreign language
requirements, we analyzed data provided by State that listed all
overseas language-designated positions and the language skills of the
incumbents filling the positions as of October 31, 2008.[Footnote 3] To
describe the potential impact of language proficiency shortfalls on
U.S. diplomacy, we reviewed previous GAO reports, as well as reports by
State's Inspector General, the National Research Council, the
Congressional Research Service, the Department of Defense, and various
think tanks, and interviewed several current and former senior State
officials. To assess State's efforts to meet its foreign language
requirements and related challenges, and the extent to which State has
a comprehensive strategy to determine and meet its foreign language
requirements, we reviewed State's planning documents, including
strategic plans, performance reports, and budget justifications and
compared these documents with guidance on comprehensive workforce
planning developed by GAO and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
For all three objectives, we interviewed officials from State's Bureaus
of Human Resources (HR), Consular Affairs, Diplomatic Security, and the
geographic bureaus; the Foreign Service Institute (FSI); and officials
at overseas posts in China, Egypt, India, Tunisia, and Turkey. Appendix
I provides a detailed description of our scope and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2008 to September 2009
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Results in Brief:
State continues to have notable gaps in its foreign language
capabilities, which could hinder U.S. overseas operations. As of
October 31, 2008, 31 percent of officers in all worldwide language-
designated positions did not meet both the foreign language speaking
and reading proficiency requirements for their positions, up slightly
from 29 percent in 2005. In particular, State continues to face foreign
language shortfalls in areas of strategic interest--such as the Near
East and South and Central Asia, where about 40 percent of officers in
language-designated positions did not meet requirements. Gaps were
notably high in Afghanistan, where 33 of 45 officers in language-
designated positions (73 percent) did not meet the requirement, and in
Iraq, with 8 of 14 officers (57 percent) lacking sufficient language
skills. Shortfalls in supercritical needs languages, such as Arabic and
Chinese, remain at 39 percent, despite efforts to recruit individuals
with proficiency in these languages. Past reports by GAO, State's
Office of the Inspector General, the Department of Defense, and various
think tanks have concluded that foreign language shortfalls could be
negatively affecting U.S. national security, diplomacy, law
enforcement, and intelligence-gathering efforts. Our fieldwork for this
report indicates these conclusions are still relevant. For example,
consular officers at a post we visited said that because of a lack of
language skills, they make adjudication decisions based on what they
"hope" they heard in visa interviews, consistent with findings of
State's Office of the Inspector General and our 2006 report, altogether
covering seven posts.
State's current approach to meeting its foreign language proficiency
requirements involves an annual review process, training, recruitment,
and incentives; however, the department faces several challenges to
these efforts, particularly staffing shortages. State's annual language
designation process results in a list of positions requiring language
skills. State primarily uses language training to meet its foreign
language requirements, and does so mostly at FSI in Arlington,
Virginia, but also at field schools and post language training
overseas. In 2008, the department reported a training success rate of
86 percent. In addition, the department recruits personnel with foreign
language skills through special incentives offered under its critical
needs language program, and pays bonuses to encourage staff to study
and maintain a level of proficiency in certain languages. The
department has hired 445 officers under this program since 2004.
However, various challenges limit the effectiveness of these efforts.
According to State, two main challenges are overall staffing shortages,
which limit the number of staff available for language training, and
the recent increase in language-designated positions. The staffing
shortages are exacerbated by officers curtailing their tours at posts,
for example to staff the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, which has
led to a decrease in the number of officers in the language training
pipeline. These departures often force their successors to arrive at
post early without having completed language training. As part of its
effort to address these staffing shortfalls, in fiscal year 2009 State
requested and received funding for 300 new positions to build a
training capacity, intended to reduce gaps at post while staff are in
language training. State officials said that if the department's fiscal
year 2010 request for 200 additional positions is approved, the
department's language gaps will begin to close in 2011; however, State
has not indicated when its foreign language staffing requirements will
be completely met. Another challenge is the widely held perception
among Foreign Service officers that State's promotion system does not
consider time spent in language training when evaluating officers for
promotion, which may discourage officers from investing the time
required to achieve proficiency in certain languages. Although HR
officials dispute this perception, the department has not conducted a
statistically significant assessment of the impact of language training
on promotions.
State's current approach to meeting its foreign language proficiency
requirements has not closed the department's persistent language
proficiency gaps and reflects, in part, a lack of a comprehensive
strategic direction. Common elements of comprehensive workforce
planning--described by GAO as part of a large body of work on human
capital management--include setting strategic direction that includes
measurable performance goals and objectives and funding priorities,
determining critical skills and competencies that will be needed in the
future, developing an action plan to address gaps, and monitoring and
evaluating the success of the department's progress toward meeting
goals.[Footnote 4] In the past, State officials have asserted that
because language is such an integral part of the department's
operations, a separate planning effort for foreign language skills was
not needed. More recently, State officials have said that the
department's plan for meeting its foreign language requirements is
spread throughout a number of documents that address these
requirements, including the department's Five-Year Workforce Plan.
However, these documents are not linked to each other and do not
contain measurable goals, objectives, resource requirements, and
milestones for reducing the foreign language gaps. We believe that a
more comprehensive strategic approach would help State to more
effectively guide and assess progress in meeting its foreign language
requirements.
To address State's long-standing foreign language proficiency
shortfalls, this report recommends that the Secretary of State develop
a comprehensive strategic plan with measurable goals, objectives,
milestones, and feedback mechanisms that links all of State's efforts
to meet its foreign language requirements.
State generally agreed with the report's findings, conclusions, and
recommendations and described several initiatives that address elements
of the recommendations. In addition, State recently convened an inter-
bureau language working group, which will focus on and develop an
action plan to address GAO's recommendations. State also provided
technical comments, which we have included throughout this report as
appropriate.
Background:
State is the lead agency for the conduct of American diplomacy, and its
foreign affairs activities seek to promote and protect the interests of
American citizens. State requires that Foreign Service officers
assigned to certain positions worldwide meet a specified level of
proficiency in the language or languages of the host country. As of
October 31, 2008, State had about 3,600 positions worldwide that
required language proficiency and 530 positions where such proficiency
was preferred but not required (language-preferred positions). (See
table 1.) State categorizes these languages as "world" (for example,
Spanish or French), "hard" (for example, Urdu), or "superhard" (for
example, Arabic or Chinese) based on the time it generally takes
individuals to learn them. State has also defined its need for staff
proficient in some languages as "supercritical" or "critical," based on
criteria such as the difficulty of the language and the number of
language-designated positions in that language, particularly at hard-
to-staff posts.[Footnote 5] About 970, or 27 percent of, language-
designated positions are for supercritical or critical needs languages.
Table 1: Overseas Language-Designated Positions, by Language Type and
Region as of October 31, 2008:
Language type: Critical;
Number of language-designated positions: 373.
Language type: Supercritical;
Number of language-designated positions: 600.
Language type: Other;
Number of language-designated positions: 2,626.
Language type: Total;
Number of language-designated positions: 3,599.
Region: Africa;
Number of language-designated positions: 301.
Region: East Asia/Pacific;
Number of language-designated positions: 532.
Region: Europe;
Number of language-designated positions: 1,033.
Region: Near East;
Number of language-designated positions: 377.
Region: South/Central Asia;
Number of language-designated positions: 206.
Region: Western Hemisphere;
Number of language-designated positions: 1,150.
Region: Total;
Number of language-designated positions: 3,599.
Source: GAO analysis of State data.
[End of table]
Proficiency Scale:
State uses the foreign language proficiency scale established by the
federal Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) to rank an individual's
language skills.[Footnote 6] The scale has six levels, from 0 to 5--
with 5 being the most proficient--to assess an individual's ability to
speak, read, listen, and write in another language. State sets
proficiency requirements only for speaking and reading, and these
requirements tend to congregate at proficiency levels 2 and 3.[Footnote
7] Table 2 shows the language skill requirements for each proficiency
level.
Table 2: Proficiency and Language Capability Requirements:
Proficiency level: 0-None;
Language capability requirements: No practical capability in the
language.
Proficiency level: 1-Elementary;
Language capability requirements: Sufficient capability to satisfy
basic survival needs and minimum courtesy and travel requirements.
Proficiency level: 2-Limited working;
Language capability requirements: Sufficient capability to meet routine
social demands and limited job requirements. Can deal with concrete
topics in past, present, and future tense.
Proficiency level: 3-General professional;
Language capability requirements: Able to use the language with
sufficient ability to participate in most formal and informal
discussion on practical, social, and professional topics. Can
conceptualize and hypothesize.
Proficiency level: 4-Advanced professional;
Language capability requirements: Able to use the language fluently and
accurately in all levels normally pertinent to professional needs. Has
range of language skills necessary for persuasion, negotiation, and
counseling.
Proficiency level: 5-Functionally native;
Language capability requirements: Able to use the language at a
functional level equivalent to that of a highly articulate, well-
educated native speaker.
Source: Compiled by GAO from Interagency Language Roundtable documents.
[End of table]
The difference between the second and the third proficiency levels--the
ability to interact effectively with native speakers--is significant in
terms of training costs and productivity. For example, State provides
about 44 weeks of training to bring a new speaker of a so-called
superhard language such as Arabic up to the second level. Moving to
level-3 proficiency usually requires another 44 weeks of training,
which is generally conducted at field schools overseas.
State Continues to Face Shortfalls in Meeting Its Foreign Language
Requirements, with Potentially Adverse Effects on Department
Operations:
State faces notable shortfalls in meeting its foreign language
requirements for overseas language-designated positions. Overall, 31
percent of Foreign Service generalists and specialists in language-
designated positions worldwide did not meet the speaking and reading
proficiency requirements of their positions as of October 31, 2008.
While the extent of these shortfalls varies, they are found in all
regions, in all languages, and in all types of positions. These
shortfalls may have adverse impacts on security, public diplomacy,
consular operations, economic and political affairs, and other aspects
of U.S. diplomacy.
Some Foreign Service Officers Do Not Meet the Language Requirements for
Their Positions:
As of October 2008, 31 percent of Foreign Service generalists and
specialists in language-designated positions worldwide did not meet
both of the speaking and reading proficiency requirements of their
positions, up from 29 percent in 2005. The percentage decreases to 25
percent if officers who meet at least one of the requirements are
included. Overall, 1,005 officers in language-designated positions did
not meet both of the requirements of their positions, and an additional
334 language-designated positions were vacant (see figure 1). The
persistence of these shortfalls is partially attributable to an overall
increase of 332 overseas language-designated positions between 2005 and
2008, many of which are in hard and superhard languages. At the same
time, State increased the overall number of language-proficient
officers who meet the requirements for their positions by about 240
officers between 2005 and 2008.
Figure 1: Number of Overseas LDPs Filled by Officers Meeting the
Requirements, Filled by Officers Who Do Not Meet the Requirements, and
Vacant, as of October 31, 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
LDPs filled by officer meeting requirements: 2,260;
LDPs filled by officers who don't meet requirements: 1,005;
Vacant LDPs: 334;
Total: 33,599.
Source: GAO analysis of State data.
[End of figure]
State reports annually to Congress on foreign language proficiency in
the department; however, its methodology for calculating the percentage
of officers who meet the requirements is potentially misleading and
overstates the actual language proficiency of FSOs in language-
designated positions. For example, State has reported that over 80
percent of employees assigned to vacant language-designated positions
met or exceeded the proficiency requirement in each year since fiscal
year 2005. According to HR officials responsible for compiling and
analyzing these data, however, this figure is not the percentage of
officers currently in language-designated positions who have tested
scores at or above the requirements for the position; rather, it
measures the percentage of officers assigned to language-designated
positions who are enrolled in language training, regardless of the
outcome of that training. Because several officers do not complete the
entire training, while others do not achieve the level of proficiency
required even after taking the training, the actual percentage of
officers meeting the requirements for their positions is likely lower.
While the extent of language deficiencies varies from post to post,
some of the greatest deficiencies exist in regions of strategic
interest to the United States (see figure 2). For example, about 40
percent of officers in language-designated positions in the Middle East
and South and Central Asia did not meet the requirements for their
positions. Further, 57 percent (or 8 officers) and 73 percent (or 33
officers) of officers in Iraq and Afghanistan, respectively, did not
meet the requirements for their positions.[Footnote 8] Other missions
with notable gaps include Pakistan (45 percent/5 officers), Egypt (43
percent/13 officers), India (43 percent/12 officers), and Saudi Arabia
(38 percent/12 officers).
Figure 2: Number of Overseas LDPs, by Region, Filled by Officers
Meeting the Requirements, Filled by Officers Who Do Not Meet the
Requirements, and Vacant, as of October 31, 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Location: Africa;
LDPs filled by officer meeting requirements: 157;
LDPs filled by officers who don't meet requirements: 111;
Vacant LDPs: 33.
Location: East Asia;
LDPs filled by officer meeting requirements: 324;
LDPs filled by officers who don't meet requirements: 162;
Vacant LDPs: 46.
Location: Europe;
LDPs filled by officer meeting requirements: 662;
LDPs filled by officers who don't meet requirements: 297;
Vacant LDPs: 74.
Location: Near East;
LDPs filled by officer meeting requirements: 203;
LDPs filled by officers who don't meet requirements: 138;
Vacant LDPs: 36.
Location: South/Central Asia;
LDPs filled by officer meeting requirements: 109;
LDPs filled by officers who don't meet requirements: 76;
Vacant LDPs: 21.
Location: Western Hemisphere;
LDPs filled by officer meeting requirements: 805;
LDPs filled by officers who don't meet requirements: 221;
Vacant LDPs: 124.
Source: GAO analysis of State data.
[End of figure]
Despite State's recent efforts to recruit individuals with proficiency
in supercritical and critical languages, and some improvement in
filling language-designated positions in certain critical languages
since 2005, the department continues to experience notable gaps in
these languages (see figure 3). In 2008, 73 more positions in
supercritical needs languages were filled by officers meeting the
requirements than in 2005. However, 39 percent of officers assigned to
LDPs in supercritical languages still do not meet the requirements for
their positions, compared with 26 percent in critical languages and 30
percent in all other languages. Specifically, 43 percent of officers in
Arabic language-designated positions do not meet the requirements of
their positions (107 officers in 248 filled positions), nor do 66
percent of officers in Dari positions (21 officers in 32 positions), 38
percent in Farsi (5 officers in 13 positions), or 50 percent in Urdu (5
officers in 10 positions).
Figure 3: Percentage of Foreign Service Officers Who Do Not Meet the
Language Requirements for Their Positions, by Language Type and
Selected Languages:
[Refer to PDF for image: two vertical bar graphs]
Language type: Noncritical;
Percent unqualified: 29.6%.
Language type: Critical;
Percent unqualified: 26.3%.
Language type: Super Critical;
Percent unqualified: 39.0%.
Selected language: Arabic;
Percent unqualified: 43.1%.
Selected language: Chinese;
Percent unqualified: 30.6%.
Selected language: Dari;
Percent unqualified: 65.6%.
Selected language: Korean;
Percent unqualified: 30%.
Selected language: Russian;
Percent unqualified: 18.9%.
Selected language: Turkish;
Percent unqualified: 37.5%.
Selected language: French;
Percent unqualified: 40.4%.
Selected language: Spanish;
Percent unqualified: 18.9%.
Source: GAO analysis of State data.
[End of figure]
Shortfalls vary by position type. Foreign Service specialists--staff
who perform security, technical, and other support functions--are less
likely to meet the language requirements of their position than Foreign
Service generalists. More than half of the 739 specialists in language-
designated positions do not meet the requirements, compared with 24
percent of the 2,526 generalists. For example, 53 percent of regional
security officers do not speak and read at the level required by their
positions.[Footnote 9] According to officials in Diplomatic Security,
language training for security officers is often cut short because many
ambassadors are unwilling to leave security positions vacant. Further,
among Foreign Service generalists, 58 percent of officers in management
positions do not meet the language requirements, compared with 16
percent of officers in consular positions and 23 percent of officers in
public diplomacy positions.
When posts are unable to fill language-designated positions with
language-qualified officers, they must decide whether to request a
language waiver and staff the position with an officer who does not
meet the language requirements or to leave the position unstaffed until
an officer with the requisite skills is available. In some cases, a
post chooses to leave a language-designated position vacant for a
period of time while an officer is getting language training. In other
cases, when a post has requested repeated language waivers for a
specific position, it may request that the language requirement be
eliminated for the position. According to State, in 2008 the department
granted 282 such waivers--covering about 8 percent of all language-
designated positions--down from 354 in 2006. State granted a
disproportionate number of waivers for South and Central Asia, where
the language requirement for about 18 percent of the region's 206
language-designated positions was waived in 2008, compared with 5
percent in both East Asia and the Western Hemisphere.
Language Shortfalls May Negatively Affect Aspects of U.S. Diplomacy:
Our fieldwork for this report, in addition to past reports by GAO,
State's Office of the Inspector General, the National Research Council,
the Department of Defense, and various think tanks, has indicated that
foreign language shortfalls could be negatively affecting several
aspects of U.S. diplomacy, including consular operations, security,
public diplomacy, economic and political affairs, the development of
relationships with foreign counterparts and audiences, and staff
morale. It is sometimes difficult to link foreign language shortfalls
to a specific negative outcome or event, and senior officials at State
have noted that language shortfalls neither prevent officers from doing
their jobs nor have catastrophic consequences. However, these officials
acknowledged that the cumulative effects of these gaps do present a
problem, and the department has not assessed their impact on the
conduct of foreign policy. Table 3 presents some examples of such
impacts from our current fieldwork, previous GAO reports, and reports
by State's Inspector General, the National Research Council, and the
Department of Defense.
Table 3: Examples of the Potential Impact of Language Shortfalls from
GAO Fieldwork, Previous GAO Reports, and Reports by Other
Organizations:
Consular operations:
GAO (2009):
* Consular officers in Cairo said that because of a lack of language
skills, they make decisions based on what they "hope" they have heard
and, as a result, may be incorrectly adjudicating visa decisions;
* A consular officer in Istanbul proficient in Turkish said she has
seen cases where adjudicating officers have refused visa applications
because they did not fully understand the applicant;
Previous GAO reports:
* Officials at one high-fraud visa post stated that, because of
language skill deficiencies, consular officers sometimes adjudicate
visas without fully understanding everything visa applicants tell them
during visa interviews (2006);
Other reports:
* State's Inspector General found that the ability of consular officers
in at least two Arabic-speaking posts to conduct in-depth interviews
necessary for homeland security is limited (2005);
* State's Inspector General found that insufficient Chinese language
skills were a serious weakness in the U.S. Mission to China's consular
operations (2004).
Security:
GAO (2009):
* A security officer in Istanbul said that inability to speak the local
language hinders one's ability to get embedded in the society and
develop personal relationships, which limits officers' effectiveness;
* A security officer in Cairo said that without language skills,
officers do not have any "juice"--that is, the ability to influence
people they are trying to elicit information from;
* An officer at a post of strategic interest said because she did not
speak the language, she had transferred a sensitive telephone call from
a local informant to a local employee, which could have compromised the
informant's identity;
Previous GAO reports:
* According to one regional security officer, the lack of foreign
language skills may hinder intelligence gathering because local
informants are reluctant to speak through locally hired interpreters
(2006);
Other reports:
* A study commissioned by the Department of Defense concluded that gaps
in governmentwide language capabilities have undermined cross-cultural
communication and threatened national security (2005).
Public diplomacy:
GAO (2009):
* A public affairs officer in one post we visited said that the local
media does not always translate embassy statements accurately,
complicating efforts to communicate with audiences in the host country.
For example, he said the local press translated a statement by the
ambassador in a more pejorative sense than was intended, which damaged
the ambassador's reputation and took several weeks to correct;
Previous GAO reports:
* According to an information officer in Cairo, the embassy did not
have enough Arabic-speaking staff to engage the Egyptian media
effectively (2006);
* Foreign officials we met with noted that speaking the host country's
language demonstrates respect for its people and culture; thus fluency
in the local language is important for effectively conducting public
diplomacy (2003);
Other reports: [Empty].
Economic and political affairs:
GAO (2009):
* In Shenyang, a Chinese city close to the border with North Korea, the
consul general told us that reporting about issues along the border had
suffered because of language shortfalls;
* In Tunis, officers told us that Arabic-speaking staff sometimes work
outside of their portfolio to cover for colleagues without Arabic
skills, which places a larger burden on officers with language skills;
Previous GAO reports:
* An economics officer at one post said that months-long negotiations
with foreign government officials were making little progress until
American officers began speaking the host country language and a local
official who did not speak English could convey valuable information
(2006);
Other reports:
* In Vladivostok, State's Inspector General reported that lack of
proficiency in Russian limited the political/economic officer's
reporting (2007).
Developing relationships:
GAO (2009):
* The U.S. ambassador to Egypt said that officers who do not have
language skills cannot reach out to broader, deeper audiences and gain
insight into the country;
* Other officials in Cairo noted that the officers in Egypt who do not
speak the language tend to inherit the contacts of their predecessor,
leading to a perpetually limited pool of contacts;
* In China, officials told us that the officers in China with
insufficient language skills get only half the story on issues of
interest, as they receive only the official party line and are unable
to communicate with researchers and academics, many of whom do not
speak English;
* The deputy chief of mission in Ankara said that officers who do not
have sufficient Turkish skills are reading English-language newspapers
rather than what Turks are reading, further limiting their insight into
what is happening in the country;
Previous GAO reports: [Empty];
Other reports:
* In Afghanistan, State's Inspector General reported that less than one-
third of political and economic officers were proficient in a national
language, which has led to difficulties in establishing and maintaining
relationships with Afghan contacts (2006);
* The Inspector General has also reported that in Lebanon, political,
economic, and public diplomacy officers went to post without sufficient
language skills, limiting their efforts to expand their contacts among
audiences that do not speak English (2005).
Morale:
GAO (2009):
* Several officers noted that life in Turkey without any Turkish
language skills is very inhibiting, particularly for family members who
are out in the city every day;
* The head of the Political/Economic Section in Shenyang said that
families are very isolated without Chinese language skills;
Previous GAO reports: [Empty];
Other reports:
* State's Inspector General found the lack of Russian language skills
inhibits social interaction by many new arrivals in Moscow and by some
other community members, many of whom rarely venture out of the embassy
compound (2007).
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Furthermore, as a result of these language shortfalls, officers must
rely on their locally engaged staff to translate for them. Officers at
each post we visited said that they frequently take local staff with
them to meetings to help translate. For example, a security officer in
Cairo said that this tendency makes him feel irrelevant in meetings he
should be leading. In Tunis, some officers said that they must use
local staff to translate meetings outside of the embassy, but some
contacts are reluctant to speak freely in front of other Tunisians. In
addition, State's Inspector General has noted that sections in several
embassies rely on local staff to translate, monitor the local media,
and judge what the section needs to know. The Inspector General also
noted problems with this tendency, as overreliance on local translators
can make conversations less productive and imposes a significant
overhead cost that adequate language training could reduce.
Furthermore, in its 2004 inspection of the U.S. embassy in Seoul, the
Inspector General found that visa adjudications may be based on
incorrect information if a consular officer who does not understand
basic Korean must rely on translations from locally engaged staff.
State Efforts to Meet Foreign Language Requirements, Which Include
Training, Recruitment, and Incentives, Face Several Challenges:
State's efforts to meet its foreign language requirements include an
annual review process to determine the number of language-designated
positions, providing language training, recruiting staff with skills in
certain languages, and offering pay incentives to officers to continue
learning and maintaining language skills. However, several challenges--
such as staffing shortages, the recent increase in language-designated
positions, and perceptions about the value of language training in
State's promotion system--limit State's ability to meet these
requirements.
State Determines Its Foreign Language Requirements through an Annual
Review Process, but These Requirements May Not Reflect Actual Needs:
State determines its foreign language requirements through an annual
review process that results in incremental changes but does not
necessarily reflect posts' actual needs. Every year, HR directs posts
to review all language-designated positions and to submit requests for
any changes in the number of positions or level of proficiency.
Headquarters officials from HR, FSI, and the regional bureaus then
review and discuss these requests and develop a list of positions
identified as requiring foreign language skills. However, the views
expressed by officials from HR and FSI, and FSOs at overseas posts
during our meetings with these officials, and our findings in previous
work on this issue, suggest that State's designated language
proficiency requirements do not necessarily reflect the actual language
needs of the posts. State's current instructions to the posts suggest
the language designation review be tempered by budgetary and staffing
realities. Consequently, some overseas posts tend to request only the
positions they think they will receive. For example, a senior official
at one of the overseas posts we visited said that although he would
like several positions at the 4/4 proficiency level in his section, he
knows the positions will not be designated at that level, so he does
not request them. A senior official at another post we visited said he
does not request language-designated positions at a higher proficiency
level because he knows that ultimately the post will not get enough
applicants for the positions. This view was echoed by HR officials who
stated that overseas posts must often weigh the desire to attract a
large number of applicants against a desire to draw bidders with a
higher level of language proficiency. The public affairs officer at one
of the overseas posts we visited said he tried to have some language-
designated positions in his section downgraded to language-preferred
because he had a hard time filling them. Further, HR officials told us
that State should conduct a more thorough assessment of language
requirements regardless of resource requirements.
Concerns about the process have been a long-standing issue at State. A
1986 State report noted that the language designation system needed to
be overhauled on a worldwide basis and recommended that posts carefully
review their language-designated positions with the geographic bureaus,
eliminating positions that seem unnecessary, adding more if required,
deciding how many positions at the 4 proficiency level are needed, and
defining what kind of fluency each language-designated position
requires.[Footnote 10] For example, one senior official said there
should be a systematic review of which positions need language
proficiency and which do not, and then the department should decide
whether it gives some language training to a lot of people or extensive
language training to a select few.
Moreover, officers at the posts we visited questioned the validity of
the relatively low proficiency level required for certain positions,
citing the need for a higher proficiency level. Officials at most of
the posts we visited said that a 3/3 in certain critical languages is
not always enough for officers to do their jobs, although they
acknowledged the difficulty State would have filling positions at a
higher proficiency level. For example, an economics officer at one of
the posts we visited said that she could start meetings and read the
newspaper with her 3/3 in Arabic, but that level of proficiency did not
provide her with language skills needed to discuss technical issues,
and the officers in the public affairs section of the same post said
that a 3/3 was not sufficient to effectively explain U.S. positions in
the local media. Officers in the public affairs section of another post
we visited said that they were not comfortable making statements on
U.S. foreign policy with a 3/3 proficiency level. Senior officials at a
third post said 3/3 is adequate to ask and answer questions but not to
conduct business. An officer with a 4/4 in Chinese said officers in his
section did the best job they could but a 3/3 was not enough. He said
he sometimes had difficulty at his level, for example, when
participating in radio interviews broadcast to local audiences. In
addition, consular officers at some of the posts we visited questioned
whether a proficiency level of 2 in speaking was sufficient for
conducting visa interviews. They said they could ask questions but did
not always understand the answers and sometimes had to rely on locally
engaged staff to translate. HR officials explained that a position may
be classified at 2 when, in reality, a higher level of proficiency is
needed. For example, proficiency requirements for untenured positions
in certain languages cannot be higher than 2 because of the limits on
training for untenured officers.
State Uses Language Training and Other Means in Its Effort to Meet
Language Requirements:
State uses a combination of language training--at FSI, at advanced
language institutes overseas, and through each post's language program--
recruitment of officers fluent in foreign languages, and incentive pay
to meet its language requirements.
Training:
State primarily uses language training, typically at FSI, to meet its
foreign language requirements. FSI's School of Language Studies offers
training in about 70 languages. State also offers full-time advanced
training in superhard languages at a few overseas locations, including
Beijing, China; Cairo, Egypt; Seoul, South Korea; Taipei, Taiwan;
Yokohama, Japan; and Tunis, Tunisia. In addition, overseas posts offer
part-time language training through post language programs and FSI
offers distance learning courses to officers overseas. Finally, FSI
offers overseas and domestic mid-course opportunities in many
languages, including programs in countries such as Turkey, Russia, and
Israel, including activities such as classroom study overseas, field
trips, and home visits with local families. These immersions serve
either as a substitute for some portion of the Washington training or
as a complement or refresher to enhance the learner's ability to
achieve a higher degree of facility in dealing with the local community
and to increase the return on the department's training investment.
State measures the effectiveness of its training in a variety of ways;
however, concerns about several aspects of FSI training persist. State
collects data and reports on the percentage of students who attain the
intended proficiency level in all critical languages when they are
enrolled in language training for at least the recommended length of
training as an indicator of the success of FSI training. For 2008,
State reported a language training success rate of 86 percent.[Footnote
11] State also tracks overall satisfaction with all training at FSI and
reported a 94 percent satisfaction rate for fiscal year 2008. Officials
we met with overseas, however, expressed mixed experiences with FSI
language training. For example, consular officers in Istanbul described
the FSI training as outstanding. Entry-level officers in Cairo said
that instruction at the beginning levels at FSI is very good, but that
FSI is not well equipped for beyond-3 training. However, FSI officials
explained that because there are only 2 4/4 language-designated
positions in the department, there is almost no formal requirement for
FSI to provide such training. FSI officials also stated that without a
mandate or the necessary resources, FSI provides beyond-3 training on
an ad hoc basis. A few officers questioned the relevance of the foreign
language training that they received to their jobs. Several officers
also stated that they were not aware of a formal mechanism for them to
provide feedback on this issue to FSI. A few officers said that they
provided feedback to FSI, but they were not sure if their concerns were
addressed. FSI officials stated that FSI provides several opportunities
for feedback. For example, the institute administers a training impact
survey eliciting the respondent's opinion of the effectiveness of the
training for the respondent's job several months after it is completed.
However, the response rate for this survey has been low: for 2005,
State received 603 of 1,476 possible responses; for 2006, 404 of 1,450
possible responses; and for 2007, 226 of 1,503 possible responses. FSI
officials said that another opportunity for feedback is the evaluation
students complete at the end of every class.
Recruitment:
State also recruits personnel with foreign language skills through
special incentives offered under its critical needs language program;
however, some officials noted the department believes it is easier to
train individuals with good diplomatic skills to speak a language than
it is to recruit linguists and train them to be good diplomats. Under
the critical needs program, State offers bonus points for applicants
who have passed the Foreign Service exam and demonstrate mastery in a
foreign language. The additional points can raise the applicant's
ranking on the Foreign Service registry, improving the chances of being
hired. Officers recruited for their proficiency in supercritical and
critical needs languages are obligated to serve at an overseas post
where they can use the language during their first or second tour.
Officers recruited since 2008 are also required to serve at a post
where they can use the language a second time as a midlevel officer.
The effects of this program on State's language proficiency gaps are
unclear, in part because State has not established numerical targets
for its critical needs hiring and has not yet performed an assessment
of its effectiveness. An Office of Recruitment official, who was
involved in the development of the list, stated that the department
could not yet assess the program's effectiveness because the program,
which started in 2004, is still new and the department does not have
sufficient data to perform such an assessment. The official pointed out
that there have been only about five hiring cycles since it started.
However, State data show the department has recruited 445 officers
under the program since 2004, and about 94 percent of these officers
who have had at least two assignments have completed their obligation
to serve at an overseas post where they were able to use the language.
A total of 19 officers that have either served two tours or at least
have the second tour onward assignment arranged have definitively not
filled the obligation and most of those were due to medical or security
reasons. The Office of Recruitment official said that since the
requirement for the second tour for midlevel officers is still new,
there are few, if any, officers recruited under the critical needs
program who have reached the middle level.
State also does not have a formal schedule for reviewing and adding or
removing languages from the list of critical needs languages. Officials
from the Office of Recruitment said the list has been reviewed
informally and Japanese was removed because State is hiring sufficient
numbers of Japanese-speaking officers and there are few entry-level
language-designated positions at Japanese posts.[Footnote 12]
Incentive Pay:
State also offers bonus pay to members of the Foreign Service with
proficiency in certain languages under the Language Incentive Pay
program. To qualify for language incentive pay, officers must:
* have a proficiency of at least a 3/3 (for generalists) or 2/2 (for
specialists) in selected languages and:
* be serving in any position (either language designated or non-
language designated) at a post abroad where a language currently on the
list of incentive languages is a primary or primary-alternate language,
or in any language-designated position requiring an incentive language.
The incentive pay varies according to the officer's salary and tested
scores. For example, an officer with a 3/3 in Turkish in a language-
designated position in Istanbul would be eligible for a bonus of 10
percent of the base salary abroad of an FS-01/step 1 member of the
Foreign Service.[Footnote 13]
State has not measured the impact of the pay incentive on increasing
foreign language proficiency, and the officers we met with expressed
mixed opinions on the effectiveness of the program. For example, a few
officers said it is difficult and takes a long time to advance from a 2
to a 3 to qualify for the incentive, while others said the pay was a
very good incentive. Others offered suggestions for improvement. For
example, one officer said the requirements for the language incentive
program discourage some people from participating and that State should
provide incentives for people in increments, for example, for going
from a 2 to 2-plus. He also suggested that State provide incentives
separately for speaking and reading, because it takes time to increase
proficiency in reading, which is often not needed for the officer to
perform his or her job. HR and FSI officials said that State is
considering proposals to improve the incentive pay program.
Staffing Shortages and Other Challenges Have Limited State's Ability to
Reduce Its Language Shortfalls:
According to senior State officials, the primary challenge State faces
in meeting its foreign language requirements is the department's
continued staffing shortages. Specifically, State's lack of a
sufficient training float has limited the number of officers available
for language training. As a result, State has had to choose between
assigning an officer to post who may not have the requisite language
skills or allowing the position to remain empty while the incoming
officer is in language training. As noted above, in October 2008, 334
language-designated positions (9 percent of all language-designated
positions) were vacant in addition to 1,005 positions that were filled
by officers who did not meet the language requirement for the position.
For example, in fiscal year 2006, State's Director General was unable
to fill a request by the embassy in Riyadh for two additional language-
proficient officers, as recommended by the Inspector General, because
of overall staffing shortages. Furthermore, a 2008 report on State
resource issues noted that personnel shortages result in training lags,
and that ongoing tension over whether staff should complete training
assignments or fill positions complicate efforts to create a well-
trained workforce.[Footnote 14]
Despite these overall staffing shortages, State has doubled the number
of language-designated positions overseas since 2001. Department
officials noted that the recent increase in positions requiring a
superhard language--that is, one that requires 2 years of training to
reach the 3 level--and the number of 1-year tours in these positions
have compounded these shortages. For example, State must budget three
people for a 3/3 Arabic language-designated position in Riyadh, which
is typically a 1-year tour: one to fill the position, one in the second
year of language training to arrive at post the next year, and one in
the first year of training to arrive the following year.
Other staffing-related challenges include the following:
* Staff time. In some cases, Foreign Service officers lack the time
necessary for maintaining their language skills upon arriving at post.
Officers we spoke to in Tunis, Ankara, and Cairo said that they do not
have enough time in their schedule to fully utilize the post language
program. In addition, in 2006, State's Inspector General reported that
most political and economic officers in Kabul find that a routine 6-day
workweek precludes rigorous language training.
* Curtailments. When officers cut short their tours in a language-
designated position, there is often no officer with the requisite
language skills available to fill the position. Some officers we spoke
to said that in some cases, they had to cut short their language
training to come to post earlier than expected in order to fill a
position vacated by an officer who had curtailed. For example, the
regional security officers in Ankara and Tunis said that they left
language training after only a few months in order to replace officers
who had curtailed to Iraq or elsewhere. In addition, several officers
in Shenyang said that they had to leave language training early in
order to fill gaps at post.[Footnote 15]
* Position freeze. In recent years, State has left dozens of positions
vacant--or "frozen" them--in order to fully staff missions in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Officers at several posts we visited said that in order to
avoid further shortages at post, the geographic bureaus, at times, have
chosen to freeze training positions, rather than overseas positions.
Consequently, there is no officer currently in language training for
these positions, and posts will either have to request a language
waiver or hope that the incumbent already has language skills when
filling the position.
In 2009, State received funding for an additional 450 positions,
including 300 dedicated to language training. According to the
department, these positions will help to increase the training float
and reduce gaps at post while officers are in language training. State
officials have said that if their fiscal year 2010 request for an
additional 200 training positions is approved, they expect to see
language gaps close starting in 2011; however, State has not indicated
when its foreign language staffing requirements will be completely met,
and previous staffing increases have been consumed by higher
priorities. For example, in 2003, State officials stated that the
increased hiring under the department's Diplomatic Readiness Initiative
would create a training float to help eliminate the foreign language
gaps at overseas posts within several years. Although the initiative
enabled State to hire more than 1,000 employees above attrition, it did
not reduce the language gaps, as most of this increase was absorbed by
the demand for personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, and thus the training
reserve was not achieved.
Another challenge to State's efforts to address its language shortfalls
is the persistent perception among Foreign Service officers that
State's promotion system undervalues language training; however, while
HR officials told us that the system values language training, the
department has not conducted a systematic assessment to refute the
perceptions. Officers at several posts we visited stated a belief that
long-term training, specifically advanced training in hard languages,
hinders their promotion chances. For example, officers in Beijing said
that some officers are reluctant to study a foreign language that
requires a 1-or 2-year commitment because they believe it makes them
less competitive for promotion, and one officer said that she would not
have bid on her current position if she had had to take Chinese first.
A former ambassador told us that many officers feel that language
training is a "net minus" to their careers, as the department views
this as a drain on the staffing system. We reported similar sentiments
in 2006, when several officers said they believed that State's
promotion system might hinder officers' ability to enhance and maintain
their language skills over time.[Footnote 16] Although senior HR
officials told us that the promotion system weighs time in training as
equal to time at post, they acknowledged that officers applying for
promotion while in long-term training were at a disadvantage compared
with officers assigned to an overseas post. Although promotion boards
are required by law to weigh end-of-training reports for employees in
full-time language training as heavily as the annual employee
evaluation reports,[Footnote 17] officers in Beijing, Shenyang,
Istanbul, and Washington expressed concern that evaluations for time in
training were discounted. State officials said they have reviewed the
results of one promotion board and found a slightly lower rate of
promotions for officers in long-term training at the time of the
review. However, these officials were not sure if these results were
statistically significant and said that the department has not
conducted a more systematic assessment of the issue.
State Lacks a Comprehensive Strategic Plan to Address Foreign Language
Requirements:
State's approach to addressing its foreign language proficiency
requirements does not reflect a comprehensive strategic approach. As we
previously mentioned, State considers staffing shortfalls and the lack
of a training float to be the primary challenges to achieving the
department's language proficiency requirements. However, prior work by
GAO and others has shown that addressing a critical human capital
challenge--such as closing or reducing the long-running foreign
language proficiency gaps within State's Foreign Service corps--
requires a comprehensive strategic plan or set of linked plans that
sets a clear direction for addressing the challenge.
Prior Work by GAO and Others Could Guide State's Strategic Plan for
Addressing Foreign Language Requirements:
GAO, OPM, and others have developed a variety of strategic workforce
planning models that can serve as a guide for State to develop a
comprehensive plan to address its language proficiency gaps. Common
elements of these models include setting a strategic direction that
includes measurable performance goals and objectives and funding
priorities, determining critical skills and competencies that will be
needed in the future, developing an action plan to address gaps, and
monitoring and evaluating the success of the department's progress
toward meeting goals. In 2002, we reported that State had not prepared
a separate strategic plan for developing its foreign language skills or
a related action plan to correct long-standing proficiency shortfalls
and recommended that the department do so. State responded by noting
that because language is such an integral part of the department's
operations, a separate planning effort for foreign language skills was
not needed.[Footnote 18] During this review, State officials told us
that a comprehensive strategic approach to reducing foreign language
gaps would be useful. The officials mentioned a number of documents
where the department has addressed State's foreign language proficiency
requirements in various forms, including the Foreign Language
Continuum, the Strategic Plan, a 2007 training needs assessment, and
the Five-Year Workforce Plan, but acknowledged that these documents are
not linked to each other and no one document contains measurable goals,
objectives, resource requirements, and milestones for reducing the
foreign language gap.
We reviewed these documents and found that while some include a few of
the aforementioned elements of a strategic plan, none of the documents
present a comprehensive plan for State to address its foreign language
proficiency requirements. For example, the Foreign Language Continuum--
a document developed by FSI for FSOs--describes foreign language
training opportunities provided by State and, according to FSI
officials, was meant to serve as a guide for FSOs and not a plan for
reducing language gaps. The joint State-U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) Strategic Plan contains seven priority goals for
achieving State's and USAID's overall mission but only tangentially
addresses the issue of foreign languages by stating that the department
will expand opportunities for classroom training and distance learning
in a number of areas, including foreign languages. It does not discuss
if and how expanding this training will contribute to reducing the
department's language proficiency gaps, or establish measurable goals,
objectives, or time frames for its performance. The training
assessment--a 2007 training study conducted by HR and FSI to assess
State's current and future training needs--identified additional
positions to be requested in future budget justifications to increase
the training float.
State's Five-Year Workforce Plan, which describes the department's
overall workforce planning, including hiring, training, and assignment
plans, is a step in the right direction. The plan addresses language
gaps in the Foreign Service workforce to a greater extent than any of
the other documents. However, the plan falls short in several respects.
First, the document states that State has established an ongoing
monitoring process to identify and set goals for reducing language
skill gaps in the Foreign Service. This process resulted in the
development of an officer-to-position ratio target of at least 2.5
officers with the required language proficiency for each language-
designated position at the 3/3 proficiency level. State reports this
ratio as a target for meeting its critical needs language requirements;
however, the ratio is not based on quantitative analysis but on the
consensus of a working group consisting of HR and FSI officials. In
developing the ratio, State assumed that the 2.5 officers already have
the required languages and did not link the ratio to the number of
officers that should be in language training and the size of the
training float needed to achieve the 2.5 ratio. Further, State assumed
that 3/3 is the appropriate skill level for the positions, although, as
we discussed earlier, some officers have questioned the validity of
that level for certain positions. Moreover, an HR official responsible
for workforce planning at State said that the 2.5 ratio is very broad
and not sufficiently detailed or specific. For example, the ratio does
not take into account the different tour lengths. More Arabic-speaking
officers would be needed for 1-year tours than Russian speakers for 3-
year tours, so the languages should not have the same target ratio.
Also, the assessment treats Foreign Service officers at all levels
equally, even though more senior officers would not fill lower-graded
positions. Therefore, even if State achieved the 2.5 ratio for each
language-designated position, not all of the language-designated
positions would be filled. The HR official explained that State is in
the process of improving its methodology for critical needs language
assessment.
Conclusions:
Despite the various measures that State uses to determine and fill its
language-designated positions, it continues to experience persistent
gaps in its foreign language skills at many posts around the world, and
questions remain about the adequacy of the proficiency requirements.
State recognizes the importance of staffing language-designated
positions with FSOs who possess the requisite language skills to
perform their duties, and has taken some measures intended to address
its foreign language shortfalls, including requesting and receiving
funding in 2009 to build a training capacity, establishing a career
development program that requires FSOs to have sustained professional
language proficiency for consideration for promotion into the senior
ranks, and offering special incentives to attract speakers of foreign
languages under its critical needs language program. However, these
individual actions, which State has relied on for several years to
address its language proficiency requirements, do not constitute a
comprehensive strategic approach to addressing the department's
persistent gaps in language proficiency within the Foreign Service, and
they are not linked to any targets, goals, or time frames for reducing
State's language gaps. Also, State is not fully assessing the progress
of its efforts toward closing the language gaps. Actions described in
State's Five-Year Workforce Plan, such as the department's attempt to
establish an ongoing monitoring process to identify and set goals for
reducing the language skill gaps, are a step in the right direction
that could be built upon to develop a more comprehensive plan. Given
the importance of foreign language competency to the mission of the
Foreign Service, any measures taken to address State's language
proficiency shortfalls should be part of a comprehensive strategic plan
that takes a long-term view and incorporates the key elements of
strategic workforce planning. Such a plan will help State guide its
efforts to monitor and assess its progress toward closing its
persistent foreign language gaps.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To address State's persistent foreign language proficiency shortfalls
in the U.S. Foreign Service, this report is making two recommendations.
We recommend that the Secretary of State develop a comprehensive
strategic plan consistent with GAO and OPM workforce planning guidance
that links all of State's efforts to meet its foreign language
requirements. Such a plan should include, but not be limited to, the
following elements:
* clearly defined and measurable performance goals and objectives of
the department's language proficiency program that reflect the
priorities and strategic interests of U.S. foreign policy and
diplomacy;
* a transparent, comprehensive process for identifying foreign language
requirements, based on objective criteria, that goes beyond the current
annual process, to determine which positions should be language
designated and the proficiency level needed to enable officers to
effectively perform their duties; and:
* a more effective mechanism that allows State to gather feedback from
FSOs on the relevance of the foreign language skills that they acquired
at FSI to their jobs, and mechanisms for assessing the effectiveness of
State's recruitment of critical needs foreign language speakers, and
language incentive payments, as well as future efforts toward closing
the department's language proficiency gaps.
To more accurately measure the extent to which language-designated
positions are filled with officers who meet the language requirements
of the position, we also recommend that the Secretary of State revise
the department's methodology in its Congressional Budget Justifications
and annual reports to Congress on foreign language proficiency.
Specifically, we recommend that the department measure and report on
the percentage of officers in language-designated positions who have
tested at or above the level of proficiency required for the position,
rather than officers who have been assigned to language training but
who have not yet completed this training.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
State provided written comments on a draft of this report. The comments
are reprinted in Appendix II. State generally agreed with the report's
findings, conclusions, and recommendations and described several
initiatives that address elements of the recommendations. In further
discussions with State to clarify its response, an official of HR's
Office of Policy Coordination stated that State agrees with GAO that it
needs some type of plan or process to pull together its efforts to meet
its foreign language requirements, but that it has not yet determined
what form this action will take. The official further explained that
State recently convened an inter-bureau language working group, which
will focus on and develop an action plan to address GAO's
recommendations. State also provided technical comments, which we have
included throughout this report as appropriate.
As we agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the
contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it
until 30 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send
copies to the Secretary of State and interested congressional
committees. The report also is available at no charge on the GAO Web
site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-4128 or fordj@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to
this report are listed in Appendix III.
Signed by:
Jess T. Ford, Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
In this report, we (1) examine the extent to which State is meeting its
foreign language requirements and the potential impact of any
shortfalls on U.S. diplomacy, (2) assess State's efforts to meet its
foreign language requirements and describe the challenges it faces in
doing so, and (3) assess the extent to which State has a comprehensive
strategy to determine and meet these requirements.
To analyze the extent to which State is meeting its foreign language
requirements, we obtained data from State on all overseas language-
designated positions and the language skills of the incumbent filling
the position as of October 31, 2008. We compared the incumbent's
reading and speaking scores with the reading and speaking levels
designated for the position, and determined that the incumbent met the
requirements for the position only if his or her scores equaled or
exceeded both the speaking and reading requirements. A limited number
of positions are designated in two languages. We determined that the
officer met the requirements of such positions if he or she met the
speaking and reading requirements for at least one of the designated
languages. We also interviewed State officials responsible for
compiling and maintaining these data and reviewed data maintained by
some of the posts we visited on their language-designated positions,
and determined the data to be sufficiently reliable for identifying the
number of language-designated positions filled by officers who met the
requirements of the position.
To assess the potential impact of foreign language shortfalls on U.S.
diplomacy, we reviewed previous GAO reports, as well as reports by
State's Inspector General, the National Research Council, the
Congressional Research Service, the Department of Defense, and various
think tanks. We interviewed officials from State's Bureaus of African
Affairs, Consular Affairs, Diplomatic Security, European Affairs, Human
Resources, East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Near Eastern/South and
Central Asian Affairs, Public Affairs, and Western Hemisphere Affairs,
and the Foreign Service Institute. We also interviewed officials at
overseas posts in Beijing and Shenyang, China; Cairo and Alexandria,
Egypt; New Delhi, India; Tunis, Tunisia; and Ankara and Istanbul,
Turkey. We selected these posts based on the number of language-
designated positions in supercritical (e.g., Arabic, Chinese, and
Hindi) or critical needs (e.g., Turkish) languages, the extent of
language gaps, and the location of FSI field schools. We also met with
former senior State officials, including former ambassadors to Russia,
Afghanistan, and Armenia; a former dean of FSI's School of Language
Studies; and the former acting Director General of the Foreign Service
to gain their insights on the consequences of language shortfalls at
overseas missions. In total, we interviewed about 60 officials in
Washington, D.C., and over 130 officers overseas.
To assess how State determines and meets its foreign language
requirements, we reviewed past GAO reports; State planning documents,
including the strategic plan, the performance report, and budget
justification; State cables on the language designation process; and
workforce planning guidance. We also interviewed State officials in
Washington, D.C., and at overseas posts.
To describe the challenges that State faces in meeting its foreign
language requirements, we reviewed State department budget and planning
documents. We analyzed State's promotion precepts, Career Development
Program, and instructions provided to Foreign Service promotion
boards.[Footnote 19] We also interviewed State officials in Washington,
D.C., and at overseas posts.
To assess the extent to which State has a comprehensive strategy to
determine and meet its foreign language requirements, we reviewed prior
GAO reports on strategic workforce planning and State planning
documents, including the department's strategic plan, the Language
Continuum, and the Five-Year Workforce Plan. We compared State's
planning efforts to reduce foreign language gaps with guidance on
comprehensive workforce planning developed by GAO and the Office of
Personnel Management. We also interviewed officials from the Bureau of
Human Resources and others.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2008 to September 2009
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State:
United States Department of State:
Assistant Secretary for Resource Management and Chief Financial
Officer:
Washington, D.C. 20520:
September 1, 2009:
Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers:
Managing Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001:
Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers:
We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "Department
Of State: Comprehensive Plan Needed to Address Persistent Foreign
Language Shortfalls," GAO Job Code 320621.
The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report.
If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact Bert
Curtis, HR Specialist, Bureau of Human Resources at (202) 647-2655.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Sid Kaplan (Acting):
cc:
GAO - Goodwin Agbara:
DGHR - Nancy Powell:
State/OIG - Mark Duda:
[End of letter]
Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report:
Comprehensive Plan Needed to Address Persistent Foreign Language
Shortfalls (GAO-09-955, GAO Code 320621):
The Department thanks GAO for its evaluation of the Department's
efforts to fill language designated positions. The Department
appreciates GAO's recognition of our efforts to prepare staff to be
proficient communicators at posts where foreign languages are required.
We would also like to assure Congress that effective identification and
staffing of language designated positions is a serious priority within
the Department of State. However, such staffing goals are tempered by
overall Foreign Service staffing shortages, driven largely by the
competing demands of increased language expertise (and thus substantial
staff time devoted to training) and an expanding mission.
It will take time to increase hiring and to fill the gaps created by
opening more language positions at FSI, training the officers and
deploying them to the field. The additional hiring in 2009 is an
essential first step but we will need successive years of funding to
close the gap. The new hires (above attrition) funded for 2009 will not
be on board until January 2010. Furthermore, it will not be until 2011
that we begin to deploy additionally trained language officers to the
field.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
To address State's persistent foreign language proficiency shortfalls
in the U.S. Foreign Service, we recommend that the Secretary of State
develop a comprehensive, strategic plan consistent with GAO and OPM
workforce planning guidance that links all of State's efforts to meet
its foreign language requirements. Such a plan should include, but not
be limited to the following elements:
* Clearly defined and measurable performance goals and objectives of
the department's language proficiency program that reflect the
priorities and strategic interests of U.S. foreign policy and
diplomacy;
* A transparent, comprehensive process for identifying foreign language
requirements, based upon objective criteria, that goes beyond the
current annual process, to determine which positions should be language-
designated and the proficiency level needed to enable officers to
effectively perform their duties; and;
* A more effective mechanism that allows State to gather feedback from
FSOs on the relevance of foreign language training to their jobs, and
mechanisms for assessing the effectiveness of State's recruitment of
critical needs foreign language speakers, and language incentive
payments, as well as future efforts towards closing the department's
language proficiency gaps.
To more accurately measure the extent to which language-designated
positions are filled with officers who meet the language requirements
of the position, we also recommend that the Secretary of State revise
the department's methodology in its Congressional Budget Justifications
and annual reports to Congress on Foreign language proficiency.
Specifically, we recommend that the department measure and report on
the percentage of officers in language-designated positions who have
tested at or above the level of proficiency required for the position,
rather than officers who have been assigned to language training but
who have not yet completed this training.
Department Response:
We concur with the GAO conclusion that the Department should link all
of its efforts to meet foreign language requirements. We believe the
areas noted below will allow us to begin to address both the individual
and the strategic elements mentioned in the GAO recommendations. We
welcome GAO's recommendations regarding the need for thorough planning,
just as we begin to take a comprehensive look at the full range of
foreign language requirements and how best to fulfill our mission. The
Department appreciates the opportunity to respond to the recommendation
presented in this draft and thanks GAO for its team's assistance in
determining where we might focus our efforts.
Enhance the Department's Ability to Project Its Language Requirements:
The Bureau of Human Resources is in the process of developing a
"trained personnel" simulation model utilizing data on language
designated positions, competency requirements, tour lengths, and
assignment rules. Such a model would allow State to more accurately
determine:
a) How many Foreign Service employees we need trained in each
languages;
b) How many positions are required for a training float to avoid
staffing gaps;
c) How changes in assignment rules impact the number of trained
personnel needed.
Assessing the Language Incentives Program: The Department also agrees
that we must overcome the challenges inherent in fully assessing the
effectiveness of the bonus payments offered under the Language
Incentives Program. Such assessment would require both qualitative and
quantitative analyses of the recruitment and language incentive program.
Convening Language Issues Working Group: The Bureau of Human Resources
has convened an inter-bureau language working group with members from
the Foreign Service Institute and several regional bureaus with key
language interests to further department-wide communication and
collaboration on all language-related issues, including language
proficiency and incentivized languages. This working group held its
inaugural meeting on August 31, 2009. A discussion of GAO's
recommendation was the first agenda item and will shape a significant
portion of the work of this group in the coming months.
Department Methodology on Foreign Language Proficiency: To more
accurately measure the extent to which language-designated positions
are filled with officers who meet the language requirements of the
position, the Department agrees with the GAO's recommendation that it
measure and report the percentage of officers in language-designated
positions who have tested at or above the level of proficiency required
for the position, rather than officers who have been assigned to a full
course of language training but who have not yet completed the
training.
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Jess T. Ford, Director, (202) 512-4128, fordj@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Godwin Agbara, Assistant
Director; Robert Ball; Joseph Carney; and La Verne Tharpes made key
contributions to this report. Martin de Alteriis and Elizabeth Singer
provided technical assistance.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] See GAO, State Department: Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls
Persist Despite Initiatives to Address Gaps, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1154T] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 1,
2007); Department of State: Staffing and Foreign Language Shortfalls
Persist Despite Initiatives to Address Gaps, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-894] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 4,
2006); State Department: Targets for Hiring, Filling Vacancies Overseas
Being Met, but Gaps Remain in Hard-to-Learn Languages, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-139] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 19,
2003);, Foreign Languages: Human Capital Approach Needed to Correct
Staffing and Proficiency Shortfalls, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-375] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31,
2002); and, More Competence In Foreign Languages Needed By Federal
Personnel Working Overseas, ID-80-31 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 15, 1980).
[2] "Float" is an informal term to describe having additional staff on
hand to cover the workload given a percentage of staff not present
because of training or transition.
[3] A large number of Foreign Service officers transfer from one post
to another over the summer. Most officers have arrived at post by
October; thus, according to State officials, data as of October 31
provide the best snapshot available.
[4] GAO Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce
Planning, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-39]
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003).
[5] Currently, supercritical needs languages are Arabic (Modern
Standard, Egyptian, and Iraqi), Chinese (Mandarin), Dari, Farsi, Hindi,
and Urdu. Critical needs languages are Arabic (forms other than Modern
Standard, Egyptian, and Iraqi), Azerbaijani, Bengali, Chinese
(Cantonese), Kazakh, Korean, Kurdish, Kyrgyz, Nepali, Pashto, Punjabi,
Russian, Tajik, Turkish, Turkmen, and Uzbek.
[6] The ILR is an unfunded federal interagency organization established
for the coordination and sharing of information about language-related
activities at the federal level. State is a member of ILR's steering
committee, and FSI officials said that they occasionally host ILR
meetings. According to ILR, its guidelines are accepted by all agencies
of the federal government and are used as a primary reference in the
different government tests of language ability.
[7] Proficiency levels are often abbreviated. For example "S-3/R-3" or
"3/3" refers to level-3 proficiency in speaking and reading.
[8] Staffing has increased at posts in these countries. For example,
positions in Baghdad increased from 216 in 2006 to 329 in 2009 and
positions in Afghanistan increased from 100 in 2006 to 170 in 2009.
[9] Regional security officers are special agents operating out of
State's Bureau of Diplomatic Security assigned to U.S. diplomatic
missions overseas, responsible for the protection of personnel and
their families, facilities, and classified information.
[10] Monteagle Stearns, Report on Hard Language Proficiency in the
Foreign Service (Washington, D.C.: May 12, 1986).
[11] State defined this measure as the percentage of students who
attain the intended proficiency level when they are enrolled for at
least the recommended length of training.
[12] Five of the 19 officers who did not complete their critical needs
language obligation were Japanese speakers.
[13] In the Foreign Service grade structure, an FS-01 is equivalent to
the civil service GS-15.
[14] American Academy of Diplomacy and Stimson Center, A Foreign
Affairs Budget for the Future (Washington, D.C.: October 2008).
[15] A forthcoming GAO report discusses challenges of staffing hardship
posts in further detail. See GAO, Department of State: Staffing and
Experience Gaps at Hardship Posts Continue to Compromise Diplomatic
Readiness, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-874]
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 17, 2009).
[16] This challenge dates to at least 1986, when a report on hard
language proficiency in the Foreign Service identified several
bureaucratic biases adversely affecting hard language training,
including State's promotion system, which, according to the report,
"convinced many Foreign Service officers that they cannot afford to
take time out for training, especially in hard languages which require
two years or more to achieve even limited proficiency." See Monteagle
Stearns, Report on Hard Language Proficiency in the Foreign Service.
[17] Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993,
Pub. L. No. 102-138, §.155, 105 Stat. 647, 675 (1991).
[18] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-375].
[19] State's promotion precepts are guidelines by which the department
determines the tenure and promotability of Foreign Service employees.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: